LaDairis Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Nance went undrafted because he does not have good ball skills at all. The guy has bricks for hands (and so does the Jags leading dropper last year, Wilford). Nance does not adjust well to the ball. He does well if the ball is right to him (like it was when Big Ben was his QB). h+w+b+40 does not necessarily equal Randy Moss. Sometimes it equals Reggie Williams and Tyrone Calico... It is just unreal that anyone here thinks Wilford is good. Wilford makes one grab against us and he is just awesome... Against the Pats in the playoffs starting and playing the whole game, Wilford gets BLANKED... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 You have any dropped-ball stats for Nance? Seems like a guy who catches 80+ balls wouldn't be dropping too many. And Wilford never caught more than 51 passes in college, which suggests he DID drop a few back then as well. And I'm not saying Wilford is great. Just would like to see some stats to back-up your claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 You have any dropped-ball stats for Nance? Seems like a guy who catches 80+ balls wouldn't be dropping too many. And Wilford never caught more than 51 passes in college, which suggests he DID drop a few back then as well. And I'm not saying Wilford is great. Just would like to see some stats to back-up your claim. 702079[/snapback] I have no idea where to find "official drop stats" but I do sincerely realize that many football invalids are incapable of accepting the answer that "I watched this guy" and hence require "stats" to "prove" something. "Stats" show Byron Leftwich was Jax' leading rusher against the Pats. Did that "prove" that Leftwich is the "best" "runner" on the Jags? Indeed, did it "prove" that Leftwich was not limping that game? Funny, I watched that game, and Leftwich was limping, but I cannot find a "stat" to "prove" that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Sorry if I don't accept "I saw..." as being valid proof of ANYTHING. I used to, but I got smart. So excuse me if your words mean jack sh--. Show me a stat that proves what you say, or you're just another football invalid who makes claims without any supporting evidence. And at the VERY least, show me more than one scouting report on him that says he drops too many passes. And quit that condescending tone, dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Sorry if I don't accept "I saw..." as being valid proof of ANYTHING. I used to, but I got smart. So excuse me if your words mean jack sh--. Show me a stat that proves what you say, or you're just another football invalid who makes claims without any supporting evidence. And at the VERY least, show me more than one scouting report on him that says he drops too many passes. 702197[/snapback] Actually, a scouting report might be more valid than any useless stat ever will, remember this isn't baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted June 2, 2006 Author Share Posted June 2, 2006 Nance went undrafted because he does not have good ball skills at all. The guy has bricks for hands (and so does the Jags leading dropper last year, Wilford). Nance does not adjust well to the ball. He does well if the ball is right to him (like it was when Big Ben was his QB). h+w+b+40 does not necessarily equal Randy Moss. Sometimes it equals Reggie Williams and Tyrone Calico... It is just unreal that anyone here thinks Wilford is good. Wilford makes one grab against us and he is just awesome... Against the Pats in the playoffs starting and playing the whole game, Wilford gets BLANKED... 702049[/snapback] Let’s try this for a second. A 2nd year 4th round pick makes 8 starts nearly goes for 700 yards and 7 TD’s and he sucks because he went into New England IN THE PLAYOFFS and had a bad game. Makes Sense. By the way just out of curiosity do you live in MAC country, or is your infinite wisdom based solely on your draft guides? In MAC world if you’re not from Ohio or Michigan, odds are you never watched much Miami (OH) ball, and if you did it certainly wasn’t enough to pretend you know everything about freaking Martin Nance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthWesternBill Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Nance went undrafted because he does not have good ball skills at all. The guy has bricks for hands (and so does the Jags leading dropper last year, Wilford). Nance does not adjust well to the ball. He does well if the ball is right to him (like it was when Big Ben was his QB). h+w+b+40 does not necessarily equal Randy Moss. Sometimes it equals Reggie Williams and Tyrone Calico... It is just unreal that anyone here thinks Wilford is good. Wilford makes one grab against us and he is just awesome... Against the Pats in the playoffs starting and playing the whole game, Wilford gets BLANKED... 702049[/snapback] I picked up wilford last year in FF for a short period of time and he had about 3 or 4 good games , fantasy footbalwise.. he was ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthWesternBill Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 "Stats" show Byron Leftwich was Jax' leading rusher against the Pats. Did that "prove" that Leftwich is the "best" "runner" on the Jags? Indeed, did it "prove" that Leftwich was not limping that game? Funny, I watched that game, and Leftwich was limping, but I cannot find a "stat" to "prove" that... 702083[/snapback] I like this it's pretty funny, not taking sides it's just a funny way to respond to somebody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted June 2, 2006 Author Share Posted June 2, 2006 I picked up wilford last year in FF for a short period of time and he had about 3 or 4 good games , fantasy footbalwise.. he was ok 702217[/snapback] Did the same, seemed like every time I started him I got no love, and when I didn’t he would put up some solid numbers. Nobody saying he's the second coming or anything but as a 4th round 2nd year guy I would be thrilled with his production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Sorry if I don't accept "I saw..." as being valid proof of ANYTHING. I used to, but I got smart. So excuse me if your words mean jack sh--. Show me a stat that proves what you say, or you're just another football invalid who makes claims without any supporting evidence. And at the VERY least, show me more than one scouting report on him that says he drops too many passes. And quit that condescending tone, dumbass. 702197[/snapback] LMAO!!! Indeed, the "condescending tone" is appropriate for stat parroting football invalids like you. I made a take and you started the insults by asking for "stat parroting" to "prove" it to your birdbrain. Indeed, MORON, while the "stats" are not exactly bursting out all over the net, let's try some different PARROT LOGIC for your beaked insignificance... 1. Nance was at the Senior Bowl all week, so the argument that the "scouts" did not see him is absolute hogwash. The NFL scouts knew ALL ABOUT this kid, and the result of that was that he went UNDRAFTED. DUH.... 2. Nance has exactly the height+weight+bench+40 time that impresses PARROTING MORONS who know NOTHING about football like you. Needless to say, the fact that such a h+w+b+40 prospect went undrafted meant what? LOL... Yeah, like something is terribly, terribly WRONG... HHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMM............... An actual observer of Miami OH football tells you that Nance has terrible hands and ball skills. Like a double yellow head wanting another cracker, you ask for PARROTING you know doesn't exist... There are those with a clue who watch and understand, and then there are those who PARROT and think that because they PARROT they actually know something, like a PARROT who says "hello" actually understands the greeting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Let’s try this for a second. A 2nd year 4th round pick makes 8 starts nearly goes for 700 yards and 7 TD’s and he sucks because he went into New England IN THE PLAYOFFS and had a bad game. Makes Sense. By the way just out of curiosity do you live in MAC country, or is your infinite wisdom based solely on your draft guides? In MAC world if you’re not from Ohio or Michigan, odds are you never watched much Miami (OH) ball, and if you did it certainly wasn’t enough to pretend you know everything about freaking Martin Nance. 702209[/snapback] Come one, come ALL PARROTING MORONS... Most of Wilford's "production" came as the #3 and #4 WR. When he "started" late last year, his production went DOWN, because Wilford is super slow and can only get open against ZONE, not man. Indeed, ESPN is now documenting that Ernest Wilford led the NFL in DROP PERCENTAGE... http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/col...r_kc&id=2466157 1. Wilford 19.6% 2. McCareins 16.7% by a WIDE MARGIN... To top it off, "starter" Wilford, in the Jags' most important game last year, got BLANKED in NE during a 28-3 whippin when the Jags surely were never trying to throw because there is no need to throw being down so far - right... Now, go have another cracker and report back when you finish it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted June 2, 2006 Author Share Posted June 2, 2006 LMAO!!! Indeed, the "condescending tone" is appropriate for stat parroting football invalids like you. I made a take and you started the insults by asking for "stat parroting" to "prove" it to your birdbrain. Indeed, MORON, while the "stats" are not exactly bursting out all over the net, let's try some different PARROT LOGIC for your beaked insignificance... 1. Nance was at the Senior Bowl all week, so the argument that the "scouts" did not see him is absolute hogwash. The NFL scouts knew ALL ABOUT this kid, and the result of that was that he went UNDRAFTED. DUH.... 2. Nance has exactly the height+weight+bench+40 time that impresses PARROTING MORONS who know NOTHING about football like you. Needless to say, the fact that such a h+w+b+40 prospect went undrafted meant what? LOL... Yeah, like something is terribly, terribly WRONG... HHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMM............... An actual observer of Miami OH football tells you that Nance has terrible hands and ball skills. Like a double yellow head wanting another cracker, you ask for PARROTING you know doesn't exist... There are those with a clue who watch and understand, and then there are those who PARROT and think that because they PARROT they actually know something, like a PARROT who says "hello" actually understands the greeting... 702316[/snapback] Nance is not fast, or extremely agile, he also didn’t post a huge vertical, and played in the MAC. On 95% of the teams in this league he would not make an intriguing prospect simply because he will likely never be an every down receiver. His skill set right now pretty much consists of him being able to use his height to defeat CB's that are usually 4-6 inches shorter then him. Most NFL teams already have a guy like Nance who either is much better and plays every down or that can run the fade pattern in the RZ. Jacksonville’s guy is Ernest Wilford, and regardless of the drops the type of RZ production a player like Wilford brings is outstanding. 7 TD's and the guy only started 8 games. Nobody on this team is capable of being that large RZ target. That’s why we signed Nance, and that's why the rest of the league didn't want him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 You have any dropped-ball stats for Nance? Seems like a guy who catches 80+ balls wouldn't be dropping too many. And Wilford never caught more than 51 passes in college, which suggests he DID drop a few back then as well. And I'm not saying Wilford is great. Just would like to see some stats to back-up your claim. 702079[/snapback] This is just fantastic logic. If a guy catches 51 balls in a college season, that "suggests" he "DID" (all caps on that one) drop some, while if someone makes 80 catches, that means he never had a drop. LOL!!! What type of offense was he in? How many throws came his way? Does he adjust to the ball or does he need a throw right to him to have a chance of catching it? Does he catch with his hands or his basket? Woosh - straight over the feathered head of the PARROTING MORON... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted June 2, 2006 Author Share Posted June 2, 2006 Come one, come ALL PARROTING MORONS... Most of Wilford's "production" came as the #3 and #4 WR. When he "started" late last year, his production went DOWN, because Wilford is super slow and can only get open against ZONE, not man. Indeed, ESPN is now documenting that Ernest Wilford led the NFL in DROP PERCENTAGE... http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/col...r_kc&id=2466157 1. Wilford 19.6% 2. McCareins 16.7% by a WIDE MARGIN... To top it off, "starter" Wilford, in the Jags' most important game last year, got BLANKED in NE during a 28-3 whippin when the Jags surely were never trying to throw because there is no need to throw being down so far - right... Now, go have another cracker and report back when you finish it... 702319[/snapback] Wilford is not an every down receiver you moron, if you read the post I never said Nance would be either. Like Wilford he is an oversized RZ target, nothing more. But when your QB is either going to be Nail, Holcomb , or Losman, and your receivers are all dwarfs, and your offensive line probably won't be great, you might think a tall WR could come in handy in the Red Zone. Wilford kept us out of the playoffs in 2004, and I'm sure in the scheme of things his 42 points last year mattered more to the Jags then his 19.6% drop rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Nance is not fast, or extremely agile, he also didn’t post a huge vertical, and played in the MAC. On 95% of the teams in this league he would not make an intriguing prospect simply because he will likely never be an every down receiver. His skill set right now pretty much consists of him being able to use his height to defeat CB's that are usually 4-6 inches shorter then him. Most NFL teams already have a guy like Nance who either is much better and plays every down or that can run the fade pattern in the RZ. Jacksonville’s guy is Ernest Wilford, and regardless of the drops the type of RZ production a player like Wilford brings is outstanding. 7 TD's and the guy only started 8 games. Nobody on this team is capable of being that large RZ target. That’s why we signed Nance, and that's why the rest of the league didn't want him. 702326[/snapback] Yes, all you need to know about Wilford is how to PARROT his stats. Now, about those TDs. You make it sound like the guy was inactive for half the season, and then started and flourished. The exact opposite is true. Wilford was more productive when he did not start, and "finished" the season as a starter with 4 of his final five starts being thoroughly unproductive, including getting BLANKED in his final. Yea, we know, you can parrot, so that is all that is needed to "prove" your point... As for Wilford LOSING the game against the Rams by bobbling an easy catch that ended up picked and returned for a TD, well, the STATS only say "intended" for Wilford, so BAWK ON, MORON... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 So you've got nothing then. Figures. Run along junior, mommy's calling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Wilford is not an every down receiver you moron, if you read the post I never said Nance would be either. Like Wilford he is an oversized RZ target, nothing more. But when your QB is either going to be Nail, Holcomb , or Losman, and your receivers are all dwarfs, and your offensive line probably won't be great, you might think a tall WR could come in handy in the Red Zone. Wilford kept us out of the playoffs in 2004, and I'm sure in the scheme of things his 42 points last year mattered more to the Jags then his 19.6% drop rate. 702328[/snapback] It is that being "sure" that your STAT PARROTING is giving you the whole picture that makes you a MORON. You are "sure" of PARROTING about that which you did not see. The Jags have that TALL=GOOD WR 'tude, and it has wasted an unreal amount of "value" in a futile attempt to get anywhere. Wilford became the "starter" because Reggie Williams, the 04 #9 overall pick, is yet another TALL=GOOD bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted June 2, 2006 Author Share Posted June 2, 2006 Yes, all you need to know about Wilford is how to PARROT his stats. Now, about those TDs. You make it sound like the guy was inactive for half the season, and then started and flourished. The exact opposite is true. Wilford was more productive when he did not start, and "finished" the season as a starter with 4 of his final five starts being thoroughly unproductive, including getting BLANKED in his final.Yea, we know, you can parrot, so that is all that is needed to "prove" your point... As for Wilford LOSING the game against the Rams by bobbling an easy catch that ended up picked and returned for a TD, well, the STATS only say "intended" for Wilford, so BAWK ON, MORON... 702329[/snapback] You have no clue what you’re talking about. In that St Louis game Wilford made a miraculous TD catch off a deflection before the 2nd half. If you took that score away the score would have been 24-14 St Louis before Wilfords deflected INT. But even if you want to place the blame of that loss on the deflection you would most certainly have to give him credit for his winning catch in 04. Then you have the 42 points he scored last year for the Jaguars, as a 2nd year 4th round pick. Tell me LaDarius what has your expectations been like for our former 4th rounders? This is about the time you should stop talking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 You have no clue what you’re talking about. In that St Louis game Wilford made a miraculous TD catch off a deflection before the 2nd half. If you took that score away the score would have been 24-14 St Louis before Wilfords deflected INT. But even if you want to place the blame of that loss on the deflection you would most certainly have to give him credit for his winning catch in 04. Then you have the 42 points he scored last year for the Jaguars, as a 2nd year 4th round pick. Tell me LaDarius what has your expectations been like for our former 4th rounders? This is about the time you should stop talking 702343[/snapback] LOL!!! Catching a "deflected" ball just makes you sing, huh... Whether or not Wilford gained any separation that play - woosh = moron observing, no ability to assess anything but the stat sheet while watching... Can Wilford separate from man coverage? If the answer against the Pats is a complete NO, what worth does he have to the Bills?? Um, uh, DUHHHHH.... BAWK BAWK BAWK - someone say something I can parrot... The truth about Wilford is that he has no wheels and cannot separate unless he is being zoned. Catching a "deflection" does not change that, even if you get all excited by a football play that is not impressive at all. Tim Euhus was developing quite well before he hurt his knee. Clearly, he was not as good last year after the knee and the pec. Eric King did just fine as a Fifth Rounder. Duke might have a future yet. There is no question the Bills Draft record in recent years is something other than stellar... You, of course, must "know" that Geisinger is a total bust because your beaked birdbrain never saw him play last year, and not playing = bust, as it did for Keith Bulluck's first two years in Tennessee... May you find many crackers this weekend... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted June 2, 2006 Author Share Posted June 2, 2006 LOL!!! Catching a "deflected" ball just makes you sing, huh... Whether or not Wilford gained any separation that play - woosh = moron observing, no ability to assess anything but the stat sheet while watching... Can Wilford separate from man coverage? If the answer against the Pats is a complete NO, what worth does he have to the Bills?? Um, uh, DUHHHHH.... BAWK BAWK BAWK - someone say something I can parrot... The truth about Wilford is that he has no wheels and cannot separate unless he is being zoned. Catching a "deflection" does not change that, even if you get all excited by a football play that is not impressive at all. Tim Euhus was developing quite well before he hurt his knee. Clearly, he was not as good last year after the knee and the pec. Eric King did just fine as a Fifth Rounder. Duke might have a future yet. There is no question the Bills Draft record in recent years is something other than stellar... You, of course, must "know" that Geisinger is a total bust because your beaked birdbrain never saw him play last year, and not playing = bust, as it did for Keith Bulluck's first two years in Tennessee... May you find many crackers this weekend... 702348[/snapback] Of course you must know Nance is a bust because nobody drafted him, and all your draft guides say so. But for whatever reason Geisinger a former 6th round pick is going to end up anchoring the Bills line for years to come. Excuse me if I can't understand such sound logic. You keep talking as if I suggested Wilford should be an every down receiver, or that Nance should be an every down receiver. That means you probably never read the thread to begin with, or more likely decided to make up things because you have nothing else to say. Keep screaming about the playoff game in NE, or Wilford's separation and speed. Football can be a simple game LaDarius, all the intangibles like skills and stats bow to one simple rule. How many points does a player contribute to your team. Wilford was 1 of 26 WR's last year to score 7 TD's or more, and it's because the Jaguars go to him so often in the Red Zone. I could give two craps less if he's a one legged pogo stick, 7 TD's a year will help you win games. If you can’t see that you’re not very bright, but then again I think we already established that about 4 posts ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.1b7fb4086290c3afc001a7900b31fab0.png)
Recommended Posts